[Obi-instrument-branch] inputs_data/outputs_data

[frank gibson]

Hi,

Currently there are the relations inputs_data and outputs_data in OBI.
I was wondering if these are actually required or could be better
represented using the has_specified_input and has_specified_output
relation by using the following.

has_specified_input some datum

Tentative definition of has_specified_input/output: A relation between
a process and a participant present, at a minimum, at the beginning of
that process. The process is the realization of a concretization of a
realizable information entity (objective specification or plan
specification). As a consequence, not all participants present at the
beginning of the process are input, only those that are viewed as
inputs according to the plan, and hence realize InputRole.

The only difference I see is that the domain and range of
has_specified_input/output is a process with range continuant.

Where as inputs/outputs_data has the domain and range device and datum.

Is specified_input/output actually defined correctly? In otherwords
can process "produce" output or can only the participants in a process
produce output?

Frank

--
Frank Gibson, PhD
http://peanutbutter.wordpress.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Obi-instrument-branch mailing list
Obi-instru...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obi-instrument-branch

[Bjoern Peters]

Agreed that 'inputs data / outputs data' should be replaced using the
general input / output relations.

frank gibson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently there are the relations inputs_data and outputs_data in OBI.
> I was wondering if these are actually required or could be better
> represented using the has_specified_input and has_specified_output
> relation by using the following.
>
> has_specified_input some datum
>
> Tentative definition of has_specified_input/output: A relation between
> a process and a participant present, at a minimum, at the beginning of
> that process. The process is the realization of a concretization of a
> realizable information entity (objective specification or plan
> specification). As a consequence, not all participants present at the
> beginning of the process are input, only those that are viewed as
> inputs according to the plan, and hence realize InputRole.
>
>
> The only difference I see is that the domain and range of
> has_specified_input/output is a process with range continuant.
>
> Where as inputs/outputs_data has the domain and range device and datum.
>
>
> Is specified_input/output actually defined correctly? In otherwords
> can process "produce" output or can only the participants in a process
> produce output?
>
>
> Frank
>
>

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Not if it is implied that the object of an input property has the input role.
-Alan

[frank gibson]

I see this as a bit like the has_function relation. If you take a
device that has_function measure, it does not have to be realized, it
still has the function. The has_specified_output relations have to be
realised in order to produce output. In this sense we could not say,
this device was designed to "output" data. Maybe thats what we should
be saying, that a device has the function to output data?

So purely because the relations are in the file at the moment, maybe
they should be subclasses of function (or depreciated)?

Frank

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanrut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not if it is implied that the object of an input property has the input role.
> -Alan
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Bjoern Peters <bpe...@liai.org> wrote:

>> Agreed that 'inputs data / outputs data' should be replaced using the
>> general input / output relations.
>>
>>
>> frank gibson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently there are the relations inputs_data and outputs_data in OBI.
>>> I was wondering if these are actually required or could be better
>>> represented using the has_specified_input and has_specified_output
>>> relation by using the following.
>>>
>>> has_specified_input some datum
>>>
>>> Tentative definition of has_specified_input/output: A relation between
>>> a process and a participant present, at a minimum, at the beginning of
>>> that process. The process is the realization of a concretization of a
>>> realizable information entity (objective specification or plan
>>> specification). As a consequence, not all participants present at the
>>> beginning of the process are input, only those that are viewed as
>>> inputs according to the plan, and hence realize InputRole.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only difference I see is that the domain and range of
>>> has_specified_input/output is a process with range continuant.
>>>
>>> Where as inputs/outputs_data has the domain and range device and datum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is specified_input/output actually defined correctly? In otherwords
>>> can process "produce" output or can only the participants in a process
>>> produce output?
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--

Frank Gibson, PhD
http://peanutbutter.wordpress.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alan Ruttenberg]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:12 PM, frank gibson <Frank....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> I see this as a bit like the has_function relation. If you take a
> device that has_function measure, it does not have to be realized, it
> still has the function. The has_specified_output relations have to be
> realised in order to produce output. In this sense we could not say,
> this device was designed to "output" data. Maybe thats what we should
> be saying, that a device has the function to output data?
>
> So purely because the relations are in the file at the moment, maybe
> they should be subclasses of function (or depreciated)?

I'm confused. A property can't be a subclass of anything.
-Alan

[Bjoern Peters]

I still think information artifacts should be able to play roles.

[frank gibson]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Bjoern Peters <bpe...@liai.org> wrote:
> I still think information artifacts should be able to play roles.

they need to to represent science properly

>I'm confused. A property can't be a subclass of anything.
>-Alan

Sorry, subproperty, of is_function_of property - if this is what we
are trying to say with two relations, not saying we actually need them
in the file

Frank

--

Frank Gibson, PhD
http://peanutbutter.wordpress.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------